Michael Wolfe

Study up. Stand up. Speak up. Pray up!

Posts Tagged ‘government’

My brother’s keeper?

Posted by americana83 on February 26, 2011

There has been much said about being your brother’s keeper. but most of all, everyone wants everyone else to be “their brother’s keeper. The president said it repeatedly during the 2008 campaign. A current contemporary Christian song even includes this chorus:

Love, will, hold us together
Make us a shelter
to weather the storm

And I’ll, be, my brothers keeper
So the whole world will know
That we’re not alone

It sounds really good, but what does it mean to be “your brother’s keeper?” Is it necessary to be your brother’s keeper in order to be a good Christian? Was not being his brother’s keeper Cain’s sin? Here is a portion of the exchange Cain had with God:

Genesis 4:5-9  But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.  (6)  And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?  (7)  If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.  (8)  And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.  (9)  And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother’s keeper?

Cain answered God with a lie and a question, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” As if the answer to the question was obvious. Abel was a full grown man. In fact, Abel himself was the keeper of the sheep, according to Genesis 4:2. He was the keeper of his sheep. As such, it was his duty to control and provide for the sheep, regulate their diet, their rest, their daily lives. Likewise, a parent is a child’s keeper. This is exactly why we do not want a government to be “our brother’s keeper.” The keeper controls the lives of those kept. Children are kept because they cannot provide for themselves and lack the knowledge to make daily decisions. Sheep are kept because they can never have such knowledge. God does not command us to be our brother’s keeper. People enjoy bashing Cain for that response. But the fact is, he was right. However, he only asked the question in an attempt to redirect God’s attention. God, however, was not deterred, knew where Abel was, and focused like a laser on Cain’s real sin:

Genesis 4:10-11  And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother’s blood crieth unto me from the ground.  (11)  And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother’s blood from thy hand;

Cain was a murderer. He was not found guilty of  “not being his brother’s keeper,” he was found guilty of murder. This also shows how jealousy bears hate and can produce murder if not repented of and forsaken.

This is why when Obama says ” we are our brother’s keeper, we are our sister’s keeper” he is completely wrong. Neither he nor the government is our keeper, or should be our keeper. To the Christian, God is our keeper. He provides what we cannot (salvation in Jesus Christ), he knows what we do not, and he provides us through his word the rules for living a prosperous and godly life no matter what happens in the world around us. He provided for the Israelites when Egypt was their keeper. He will provide for us if we have the unpleasant experience of the federal government becoming our keeper. His faithfulness in doing so is demonstrated throughout the scriptures in his frustration of the evil plans of tyrants and kings (whether Haman or Nebuchadnezzar or Saul or Jezebel).

Obama, telling how “we are our brothers keeper,” of course its all through the government, a “benevolent, all powerful government, with the power to redistribute wealth to whom it will, and drain it from whom it will. The government is not my family, nor is it my keeper. it is merely supposed to uphold the rule of law, ensure justice and defend our rights and freedoms.

Obama tells you Government is your keeper. The Federal Government needs to give you a job, insurance, education. The government is your keeper…

This artist wants to be your keeper, but he really wants Obama to be all our keepers… :/

Posted in Barack Obama, Christianity, Election 2008, health care, politics, Presidential, social spending, taxes | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments »

The Progressive’s Prayer

Posted by americana83 on February 18, 2011

Our god who art in DC, government be thy name

Thy authority be, that thy eyes all see, in our life as they do in others’

Give us this day, our daily security, and forgive us for when we speak amiss of thee.

And lead us not into independence, but deliver us from freedom

For thine is the authority to redistribute, the power to silence, and the dominion over greedy capitalist individualists forever and ever, or at least until economic collapse.

Amen

Posted in politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

“Government is not a charity”

Posted by americana83 on February 10, 2011

The following is a letter I wrote which appeared in the Delaware Gazette this Tuesday (2-8-2011)

I am writing in response to William A. McCartney’s recent letter (February 2nd, 2011) about taxes. He is right about one thing, we should keep taxes in perspective.

Yes, taxes are high. As a percentage, they consume much more of our weekly paychecks than they did when houses cost 6,000. When the income tax was first implemented, 1913, it was a 1% for those making 20,000 to 50,000 and rose to a maximum of 6% for those making 500,000 and over. Today there are countless tax brackets, and the percentage taken from the gross income is itself gross.

Where the income tax used to start at 1% for individuals making 20,000 or more, today they take a whopping 10% from those making between $0 – $17,000 (married filing jointly) and     $0 – $8,500 (single)! And that’s not even counting, state, local and sales taxes, as well as the built in cost of taxes on every good and service that makes its way to the end consumer. And on the other end, if you’re making over 379,150, you get socked with a punitive 35% tax. And this is not even factoring in the new 50% tax on good health plans (isn’t that what the “healthcare” bill was supposed to promote). What’s more, a 20,000 salary has nowhere near the buying power it did in 1913. He also neglects to mention that the gimmick of printing money via the Federal Reserve to pay for government expenses helped to cause the inflation that makes us look back with awe at a time when a six room house cost 6,000!

Some people do not like that John Doe makes 375,000 a year plus benefits, so politicians play on this jealousy to enact punitive tax levels. If Mr. McCartney really wanted to address unfairly untaxed wealth, he would look where the real wealth is, places like the Rockefeller Brothers Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation, and the Ford Foundation. However, that would be uncomfortable because each of these treasure troves of billionaires are used to fund progressive causes, namely things like social justice, environmental justice, and about every other euphemism for wealth redistribution coupled with overbearing government intrusion that can be contrived of. (There is also the awkward irony of mega wealth funding those who claim to rail against the accumulation of wealth).

It is not a mere “bumper sticker” to demand a balanced budget, to demand a dramatic reduction in government spending. With the deficit surging quickly beyond 1 trillion dollars annually, it is only a matter of time before this economic madness collapses. It cannot continue indefinitely. McCartney seems to imply that massive social spending is “what made America great.” America was already great before the income tax was enacted, before generational wealth transfers were mandated. America will cease to be great because it continues to make promises with other people’s money, bribing voters with money taken from others.

McCartney is right, it is not taxes alone that are the problem. It is the mentality in Washington that it is ok to: spend money you don’t have and create new entitlement programs when you cannot pay for the ones you already have. This has got to stop. How long can a bankrupt Federal government hand out money on loan?

Government charity is an oxymoron. Whereas faith and values and love govern true charity work, the federal government gives out bonus money to states who spend the most tax payer money! Moreover, true charity is more effective with its face to face interaction with the downtrodden. They are able to apply not just financial resources, but time and love and actually invest in the lives of people and raise them up.

Government “charity” is little more than paychecks and food stamps and discounted housing and free cell phones appearing to emanate from a faceless, nameless, emotionless bureaucracy with a host of rules that make trying to break free an exercise in futility.

High taxes are a symptom of a government run amok, throwing other people’s money at problems it cannot truly solve.

Let charities and churches fund charity work. Let the federal government fund only those activities related to actually governing and running the country. Americans are already among the most charitable. Let people keep more of their money. This will certainly lead to more charitable giving, and all without going through a low efficiency middleman.

Posted in deception, health care, Ohio, politics, social spending, taxes | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Nullification: The states as Constitutional Defenders

Posted by americana83 on January 6, 2010

What power do the states have to stop the onslaught of unconstitutional measures being handed down by the “progressive” majority? The answer lies in the 10th amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The federal government is exercising powers that do not belong to it. The authority to force citizens to purchase insurance, to decree that carbon dioxide is a pollutant and writing laws to “regulate” it does not exist at the federal level. The clear list of enumerated powers do not give these incredible powers to the federal government.

Since these powers are unconstitutional, the federal government does not have authority to force the states to enforce these illegal acts. A state by exercising its 1oth amendment rights, can reject enforcing these laws and decrees. There is no room in the constitution for decrees. Proper and legal legislation is written by congress, not by an executive agency like the EPA. Further, legal legislation does not extend government powers beyond those written into the Constitution. The founding fathers made it difficult to expand government on purpose, because they experience first hand the abuses of a government with near unlimited power.

By expanding the powers of government without constitutional authority, the present and previous administrations have practically destroyed the defenses that have protected us from naked tyranny. Only by rebuilding the walls of states’ rights can we start to turn back the tide of tyranny before the elections later this year. Because the laws are illegal, the states can ignore unfunded mandates, forcing their citizens to pay health care taxes or buy insurance, or forcing their residents to buy carbon credits or pay carbon taxes (assuming the “Cap and Tax” Bill makes it through the senate.

In addition, the 9th Amendment says this:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The founding fathers, having intimate knowledge of the abuses of the power of the government to compel its subjects to purchase goods and services, intentionally declined to give the federal government such a power. It is absurd to think that they would have ever authored a document granting such immense powers to the federal government. If they had wanted such powers in federal hands, they never would have rebelled.

Therefore, it makes reasonable sense for the states to step in to protect the constitutional rights of their citizens, the 9th amendment giving added ammunition to the use of the individual states as bulwarks against an unruly expanding government that seeks to reinterpret (distort) the Constitution to deny even the enumerated rights of the people (such as the distortion that the 2nd amendment is a “collective” right even as the other rights, such as freedom of speech, are seen [rightly and literally so] as individual rights).

Constitution-minded state governments in conjunction with constitution minded individuals and congressman are the perfect remedy for bureaucrats run amok.

Originally published on TheJeffersonDemocrat.com

Posted in politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Constitutional Chaos

Posted by americana83 on December 19, 2009

President Barack Obama has lamented in the past that the US Constitution did not say “what the government must do on your behalf.” The US Constitution was different from others in a sense it is a “charter of negative liberties,” in the sense that it limits the ability of the government to control the lives and choices of its citizens, who were not subjects, but were endowed with inalienable rights; not from the government, but from Almighty God. However, he focused solely on the negative while ignoring the fact that positive liberties were recognized as belonging to the people such as: Freedom of speech, Press, assembly, bearing arms, due process, and many others. He had to create a false dichotomy (eg the constitution is “negative” in order to offer what he considers to be positive things the government “must do on your behalf”).

There is another Constitution, that was written much more recently than our own, which sets forth a different kind of government. One that had no negative liberties, that told explicitly what the state must do on your behalf. Before I tell you the name of the country, read through this exert and look at the broad governmental control and authority that lurks behind each of these lines:

Chapter 3: SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND CULTURE

Article 19.  The social basis of the (country name) is the unbreakable alliance of the workers, peasants, and intelligentsia. The state helps enhance the social homogeneity of society, namely the elimination of class differences and of the essential distinctions between town and country and between mental and physical labour, and the all-round development and drawing together of all the nations and nationalities of the(country name).

Article 20.  In accordance with the communist ideal–”The free development of each is the condition of the free development of all”–the state pursues the aim of giving citizens more and more real opportunities to apply their creative energies, abilities, and talents, and to develop their personalities in every way.

Article 21.  The state concerns itself with improving working conditions, safety and labour protection and the scientific organisation of work, and with reducing and ultimately eliminating all arduous physical labour through comprehensive mechanisation and automation of production processes in all branches of the economy.

Article 22.  A programme is being consistently implemented in the (country name) to convert agricultural work into a variety of industrial work, to extend the network of educational, cultural, and medical institutions, and of trade, public catering, service and public utility facilities in rural localities, and transform hamlets and villages into well-planned and well-appointed settlements.

Article 23.  The state pursues a steady policy of raising people’s pay levels and real incomes through increase in productivity. In order to satisfy the needs of (country name)’s people more fully social consumption funds are created.  The state, with the broad participation of public organisations and work collectives, ensures the growth and just distribution of these funds.

Article 24.  In the (country name), state systems of health protection, social security, trade and public catering, communal services and amenities, and public utilities, operate and are being extended. The state encourages co-operatives and other public organisations to provide all types of services for the population.  It encourages the development of mass physical culture and sport.

Article 25.  In the (country name) there is a uniform system of public education, which is being constantly improved, that provides general education and vocational training for citizens, serves the communist education and intellectual and physical development of the youth, and trains them for work and social activity.

This government, organized on communist principles took it upon itself to provide for every need of the people, and by the provision of said needs, gains absolute control over the people. Within this brief section, we see the state mandate for its duties: wealth redistribution (“eliminating class”), national health care, public schools, public jobs, state funding of culture, art, social security, sports, even shaping the mental health of the people (personality development). Ask yourself, how many of these same things do we see our own government engaging in today? Our Constitution, with its charter of negative liberties, has been ignored and subverted to grant the government the same types of power that are codified into the constitution exerted here. This constitution is none other than the constitution of the Soviet Union, as rewritten in 1977 by the Soviet Party bosses. In our quest to eliminate fear and insecurity, we almost guarantee tyranny by allowing the government to ignore and destroy the limits that have been placed on it by our Constitution.

We must immediately stop the government’s rapid lurch towards totalitarian control. The healthcare bill, the Consumer credit bill, the cap and trade bill- they are not about healthcare consumer protections or environmental stewardship, as some would lead you to believe. They are cold blooded federal power grabs, wrapped in language which conceals their true nature.

Think about what they create:

New government bureaucracies.

New government regulations.

New requirements to be lawful citizens

New products that must be bought by companies to remain lawful.

They are propped up by two lies: The free market system has failed, and carbon dioxide is a pollutant. Consider these facts:

Government regulation created the housing bubble by forcing banks to loan to people who could not afford it. Government regulation creates localized monopolies for insurance companies preventing open and honest competition. Carbon Dioxide is the gas of life, released by humans and animals and recycled by plants for oxygen. If we let them get away with such lunacy, it won’t be long until it will literally be: “Every breath we take, every child we make, they’ll be taxing us.” China was just at Copenhagen pushing for a global “one-child” policy, and this claim is echoed by “progressives” around the globe.

A few other exerts from the Soviet Constitution worth considering:

Chapter 2:11.The land, its minerals, waters, and forests are the exclusive property of the state.  The state owns the basic means of production in industry, construction, and agriculture; means of transport and communication; the banks; the property of state-run trade organisations and public utilities, and other state-run undertakings; most urban housing; and other property necessary for state purposes.

Even today, we see the state separating mineral and oil rights from our property rights. Also, consider “ANWAR” and other places where the feds refuse to issue PERMITS to tap into our own natural resources. Banking? How about the Unconstitutional granting of the powers of congress to “regulate and coin money.” Housing? How about Housing and Urban Development. Are these federal agencies and quasi agencies doing anything that is constitutional? Where in the constitution do we find the authority for the government to contract a monopoly on the money supply? Provide housing at tax payer’s expense? Forbid people to use their own resources?

Chapter 2:13.  Earned income forms the basis of the personal property of Soviet citizens.  The personal property of citizens of the USSR may include articles of everyday use, personal consumption and convenience, the implements and other objects of a small-holding, a house, and earned savings.  The personal property of citizens and the right to inherit it are protected by the state. Citizens may be granted the use of plots of land, in the manner prescribed by law, for a subsidiary small-holding (including the keeping of livestock and poultry), for fruit and vegetable growing or for building an individual dwelling.  Citizens are required to make rational use of the land allotted to them.  The state, and collective farms provide assistance to citizens in working their small-holdings. Property owned or used by citizens shall not serve as a means of deriving unearned income or be employed to the detriment of the interests of society.

Even today, we see private property rights being run over when some other use is deemed “in the interests of society.” How about eminent domain to seize private homes to build a company because it will give more taxes to the government than the private dwellings?

Chapter 2:14 The state exercises control over the measure of labour and of consumption in accordance with the principle of socialism: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his work”.  It fixes the rate of taxation on taxable income. Socially useful work and its results determine a person’s status in society.  By combining material and moral incentives and encouraging innovation and a creative attitude to work, the state helps transform labour into the prime vital need of every Soviet citizen.

Even now we see consumption being controlled. Punitive taxes on cigarettes, proposed taxes on medical devices, soft drinks and so forth. The peacetime permanent federal income tax saw the beginning of regulation of incomes, small at first, it has grown to consume and redistribute ever larger chunks of our private wealth and is in the form prescribed by the Communist Manifesto:  A heavy progressive income tax.

The more power we grant government, the less freedom we have. A government, as outlined in the Soviet Constitution has unlimited power. The people under it, therefore, have no power and are little more than slaves or serfs. If we fail to check our government, if we fail to understand and stand up for our own rights, not only on election day, but every day, we will lose them to men who are working around the clock to gather to themselves absolute power.

President Barack Obama has lamented in the past that the US Constitution did not say “what the government must do on your behalf.” The US Constitution was different from others in a sense it is a “charter of negative liberties,” in the sense that it limits the ability of the government to control the lives and choices of its citizens, who were not subjects, but were endowed with inalienable rights; not from the government, but from Almighty God. However, he focused solely on the negative while ignoring the fact that positive liberties were recognized as belonging to the people such as: Freedom of speech, Press, assembly, bearing arms, due process, and many others. He had to create a false dicotomy (eg the constitution is “negative” in order to offer what he considers to be positive things the government “must do on your behalf”).

There is another Constitution, that was written much more recently than our own, which sets forth a different kind of government. One that had no negative liberties, that told explicitly what the state must do on your behalf. Before I tell you the name of the country, read through this exert and look at the broad governmental control and authority that lurks behind each of these lines:

Chapter 3: SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND CULTURE

Article 19.  The social basis of the (country name) is the unbreakable alliance of the workers, peasants, and intelligentsia. The state helps enhance the social homogeneity of society, namely the elimination of class differences and of the essential distinctions between town and country and between mental and physical labour, and the all-round development and drawing together of all the nations and nationalities of the(country name).

Article 20.  In accordance with the communist ideal–”The free development of each is the condition of the free development of all”--the state pursues the aim of giving citizens more and more real opportunities to apply their creative energies, abilities, and talents, and to develop their personalities in every way.

Article 21.  The state concerns itself with improving working conditions, safety and labour protection and the scientific organisation of work, and with reducing and ultimately eliminating all arduous physical labour through comprehensive mechanisation and automation of production processes in all branches of the economy.

Article 22.  A programme is being consistently implemented in the (country name) to convert agricultural work into a variety of industrial work, to extend the network of educational, cultural, and medical institutions, and of trade, public catering, service and public utility facilities in rural localities, and transform hamlets and villages into well-planned and well-appointed settlements.

Article 23.  The state pursues a steady policy of raising people’s pay levels and real incomes through increase in productivity. In order to satisfy the needs of (country name)’s people more fully social consumption funds are created.  The state, with the broad participation of public organisations and work collectives, ensures the growth and just distribution of these funds.

Article 24.  In the (country name), state systems of health protection, social security, trade and public catering, communal services and amenities, and public utilities, operate and are being extended. The state encourages co-operatives and other public organisations to provide all types of services for the population.  It encourages the development of mass physical culture and sport.

Article 25.  In the (country name) there is a uniform system of public education, which is being constantly improved, that provides general education and vocational training for citizens, serves the communist education and intellectual and physical development of the youth, and trains them for work and social activity.

This government, organized on communist principles took it upon itself to provide for every need of the people, and by the provision of said needs, gains absolute control over the people. Within this brief section, we see the state mandate for its duties: wealth redistribution (“eliminating class”), national health care, public schools, public jobs, state funding of culture, art, social security, sports, even shaping the mental health of the people (personality development). Ask yourself, how many of these same things do we see our own government engaging in today? Our Constitution, with its charter of negative liberties, has been ignored and subverted to grant the government the same types of power that are codified into the constitution exerted here. This constitution is none other than the constitution of the Soviet Union, as rewritten in 1977 by the Soviet Party bosses. In our quest to eliminate fear and insecurity, we almost guarantee tyranny by allowing the government to ignore and destroy the limits that have been placed on it by our Constitution.

We must immediately stop the government’s rapid lurch towards totalitarian control. The healthcare bill, the Consumer credit bill, the cap and trade bill- they are not about healthcare consumer protections or environmental stewardship, as some would lead you to believe. They are cold blooded federal power grabs, wrapped in language which conceals their true nature.

Think about what they create:

New government bureaucracies.

New government regulations.

New requirements to be lawful citizens

New products that must be bought by companies to remain lawful.

They are propped up by two lies: The free market system has failed, and carbon dioxide is a pollutant. The facts are this:

Government regulation created the housing bubble by forcing banks to loan to people who could not afford it. Government regulation creates localized monopolies for insurance companies preventing open and honest competition. Carbon Dioxide is the gas of life, released by humans and animals and recycled by plants for oxygen. If we let them get away with such lunacy, it won’t be long until it will literally be: “Every breath we take, every child we make, they’ll be taxing us.” China was just at Copenhagen pushing for a global “one-child” policy, and this claim is echoed by “progressives” around the globe.

A few other exerts from the Soviet Constitution worth considering:

Chapter 2:11.

The land, its minerals, waters, and forests are the exclusive property of the state.  The state owns the basic means of production in industry, construction, and agriculture; means of transport and communication; the banks; the property of state-run trade organisations and public utilities, and other state-run undertakings; most urban housing; and other property necessary for state purposes.

Even today, we see the state separating mineral and oil rights from our property rights. Also, consider “ANWAR” and other places where the feds refuse to issue PERMITS to tap into our own natural resources. Banking? How about the Unconstitutional granting of the powers of congress to “regulate and coin money.” Housing? How about Housing and Urban Development. Are these federal agencies and quasi agencies doing anything that is constitutional? Where in the constitution do we find the authority for the government to contract a monopoly on the money supply? Provide housing at tax payer’s expense? Forbid people to use their own resources?

Chapter 2:13.  Earned income forms the basis of the personal property of Soviet citizens.  The personal property of citizens of the USSR may include articles of everyday use, personal consumption and convenience, the implements and other objects of a small-holding, a house, and earned savings.  The personal property of citizens and the right to inherit it are protected by the state. Citizens may be granted the use of plots of land, in the manner prescribed by law, for a subsidiary small-holding (including the keeping of livestock and poultry), for fruit and vegetable growing or for building an individual dwelling.  Citizens are required to make rational use of the land allotted to them.  The state, and collective farms provide assistance to citizens in working their small-holdings. Property owned or used by citizens shall not serve as a means of deriving unearned income or be employed to the detriment of the interests of society.

Even today, we see private property rights being run over when some other use is deemed “in the interests of society.” How about eminent domain to seize private homes to build a company because it will give more taxes to the government than the private dwellings?

2:14
The state exercises control over the measure of labour and of consumption in accordance with the principle of socialism: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his work”.  It fixes the rate of taxation on taxable income. Socially useful work and its results determine a person’s status in society.  By combining material and moral incentives and encouraging innovation and a creative attitude to work, the state helps transform labour into the prime vital need of every Soviet citizen.

Even now we see consumption being controlled. Punitive taxes on cigarettes, proposed taxes on medical devices, soft drinks and so forth. The peacetime permanent federal income tax saw the beginning of regulation of incomes, small at first, it has grown to consume and redistribute ever larger chunks of our private wealth and is in the form prescribed by the Communist Manifesto:  A heavy progressive income tax.

The more power we grant government, the less freedom we have. A government, as outlined in the Soviet Constitution has unlimited power. The people under it, therefore, have no power and are little more than slaves or serfs. If we fail to check our government, if we fail to understand and stand up for our own rights, not only on election day, but every day, we will lose them to men who are working around the clock to gather to themselves absolute power.

Posted in politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

The church: a duty forsaken

Posted by americana83 on October 9, 2009

Who’s duty is it to feed the poor? If you listen to the popular political chatter on Washington and ever more frequently on main street  it is the duty of the government to provide all things for the poor (by their own arbitrary definitions). What is the Christian stance on such programs? What does the Bible say regarding the poor? Giving?

Judas knew, and he tried to use it a pretext for theft:

Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, which should betray him, Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor? This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein. (John 12:4-6)

Ananias and Sapphira knew, however, their motives were wicked and were judged quickly:

But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession, And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles’ feet. But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? While it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.
(Acts 5:1-4)

God comes out and says it in James:

pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.
(James 1:27)

Care for the poor is a religious obligation. Therefore, it is the duty of the Christians to uphold, both to provide opportunity to testify to the poor of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and to honor their Father in heaven. The Bible testifies that, “God loveth a cheerful giver.” (2 Corinthians 9:7)

Government redistribution programs have some serious Biblical problems:

They usurp God’s mandate from the church.

They separate financial well being from the moral and spiritual, encouraging dependency on government and with restrictions designed to prevent marriage and encourage abortions. Effectively, these programs help to propagate and prolong subsistence poverty, as well as a locked in voting bloc for any unscrupulous politicians willing to spend other people’s hard earned money to get some cheap votes.

They steal money from those who are working, and give it to other people.

The ironic thing is that, for all the liberal complaints about greedy, capitalist conservatives, it is conservatives who give the most to charity, and the effects of private charity can impact lives and families in the way no government program ever can: they can address the whole problem: body, mind and soul, and can truly minister to individuals in need.

Giving is a personal mandate from God, not a mandate for the government to forcibly take and redistribute others. God loves a cheerful giver, and it is to be given to further God’s work, whether in evangelism or clothing and feeding the poor. All things are to be done for the glory of God.

Who gets the glory for “government programs?” Check out the following conversation that took place in a line of thousands waiting in line for a share of “obama money” SOURCE:

here’s a portion of Ken Rogulski reporting on WJR in Michigan, two people here in line for Obama cash.

ROGULSKI: Why are you here?

WOMAN #1: To get some money.

ROGULSKI: What kind of money?

WOMAN #1: Obama money.

ROGULSKI: Where’s it coming from?

WOMAN #1: Obama.

ROGULSKI: And where did Obama get it?

WOMAN #1: I don’t know, his stash. I don’t know. (laughter) I don’t know where he got it from, but he givin’ it to us, to help us.

WOMAN #2: And we love him.

WOMAN #1: We love him. That’s why we voted for him!

WOMEN: (chanting) Obama! Obama! Obama! (laughing)

Massive government giveaway programs usurp the glory of God, make people think charity is “the government’s duty” and not their personal responsibility, encourage immoral and dangerous lifestyles, and make people dependent on the government for all their needs. Especially in this day in age, where the government is increasingly ignorant of morality, the government is not morally or ethically capable of making medical decisions* or supplying assistance* to the sick and needy. These programs exploit and enslave the poor to the “all sufficient provider,” the giver of health, the  “god-State.” Also, as the above quoted conversation demonstrates, it fosters ignorance and dumb worship. People have no idea that the money, and services provided to them gratis actually do COST someone a whole lot of money. Ignorance in this capacity will help destroy the fabric of society. It is best when individuals and private organizations directly aid the poor instead of faceless government bureaucrats. Personal interactions not only provide for needs, but allow the opportunity to impact people’s lives and let them know that people care, and that God cares.

In whatever capacity you can, do your part and encourage your church to do its part to reach out to the community. It is not the government’s responsibility, it is ours. It is not coercing everyone to pay into amoral or immoral government programs, it is the individual demonstrating their love to God and their fellow man by either directly assisting or supporting organizations that truly care for the poor or needy or sick.

Jesus said,

Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was hungry, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee hungry, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
(Matthew 25:34-40)
(Mar 9:41)

* This is beside the lack of Constitutional, legal authority to do so.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

California: Communist Terror Groups welcome!

Posted by americana83 on March 5, 2008

You can see the full text of the bill, and what is deleted from current CA law here:

This bill allows groups that advocate the violent overthrow of the US Government to not only rent government buildings for meetings or events, but also to teach in the Public School and university system! I’ve sometimes joked about California being communist, but this is no joke. California is really going off the deep end. When all is said and done, the only things California school children will learn in the classroom are:

Communism = Good

Homosexuality = Good (see SB 777 and Assembly Bill 394)(and if you don’t think so, your racist)
Drugs = Good

USA = Bad

Christians = Evil

And all this leads to one other false comparison Arnold Schwarzenegger = Republican. Ha ha, It’d actually be funny if he wasn’t messing with the minds of over 6 million children still trapped in California’s public school system. Who knows, he may end up helping the courts force home-schooled children into the mental madness that is the California public school system.

Posted in california, children, Christianity, communism, intolerance, public schools, Racism, sexuality, social spending, Spirituality, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Lights out on Edison’s invention, Congress kills traditional light bulb

Posted by americana83 on February 27, 2008

Really, doesn’t congress have better things to do and bigger problems to tackle than Edison’s evil little invention? Green Peace activists the world over are cheering, but others are standing around scratching their heads. Much like congresses brilliant decision to kill off standard over the air TV, congress leaps over the technology curve to force a still maturing technology.

A green website concludes their article with this:

“A few decades from now, people may look back on incandescent light bulbs as relics so inefficient that they are dangerous”

There are still questions about the safety of the new bulb. Here are some of the virtues of the new bulb.

Why not let consumers vote? I guess congress just likes playing big brother on the small things, while giving people the free choice to kill children. It makes no sense!

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Which is less toxic?

Posted by americana83 on February 16, 2008

Looks like a whole slew of so-called conservatives have jumped on board the McCain bandwagon. It is boiling down to a choice like God gave kind David (after he sinned a great sin): Choose which of these I will do to you: Fall before your enemies, be killed by your enemies, or be plagued by the hand of God for 3 days.

No matter who wins, (save a miracle upturn by Huckabee) they will welcome with open arms both blanket amnesty for (ILLEGAL!) immigrants and gay marriage, as well as attempting to import that wonderful European socialist invention federally funded so-called universal health care.

Wait, before you say “but it will help the children!” Think about these things:

1. The federal government manages social security, the federal funded retirement plan that promises little and is sinking like the titanic in an ice field because they keep tapping money out for illegal immigrants and slush projects2. The federal government “manages” welfare

3. The federal government always goes over budget and yields a poor return.

With the government’s stellar record of managing social spending, do we really want them managing OUR healthcare, (and taxing us like the dickens!) to do it?

I for one don’t. And even if I can afford it, Hillary, I want to have the final decision on whether or not I want to opt in (and I don’t!).

Mirror mirror on the wall, who’s most socialist of them all:

3. McCain
2. Hillary
1. Obama (Endorsed by John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, and Fidel Castro, I mean this guy must be a borderline communist) (In fairness, the Castro endorsement went to Hillary too).

Posted in Election, Election 2008, Presidential, sexuality, social spending | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Obama: spending in overdrive

Posted by americana83 on February 16, 2008

It seems that despite all the problems we have in our own country, that Obama wants to spend almost a trillion dollars abroad (in areas where corruption is even more widespread than it is here)(and in addition to what we as a nation already spend on overseas aid). Would a father let his family starve on the streets while he provided for his neighbors? Would he force those same starving family members to fund his absurd campaign?

Posted in Barack Obama, Election, Election 2008, International, Islam, Legal, Obama, Presidential, social spending, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.